Imaginarynumber1 Posted April 11, 2012 #51 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Jesus did exist. http://en.wikipedia....sephus_on_Jesus Again, this text comes after the Q source and Mark. There is no way to know if Josephus knew about Jesus or just read these gospels which were in existence by this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 11, 2012 #52 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Did they discribe him as white? My wife's uncle (big time conspiricy theorist) talks about a letter like the one you mention that claims Jesus is white. I find it kind of humorous... I remember a few years ago I answered this question with this picture... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 11, 2012 #53 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I did a quick read through the thread, but I found it lacking on one item, the fact that the Gospels give a coherent and reliable account of Jesus life insofar as they produce legitimate chronological and historical data that confirms with known facts. Yes you can doubt the validity of the miraculous and the supernatural events related therin, but that alone doesn't exclude the historicity of the documents themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artaxerxes Posted April 11, 2012 #54 Share Posted April 11, 2012 The answer is obvious. Jesus was a little Jewish rabbi that had a very deep and profound near death experience. He came back from the dead talking about "The Kingdom of Heaven". Hence all the stories in the New Testament starting with "and the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto".... No one at that time had ever seen someone crucified on the cross and lived to talk about it. The New Testament is a highly embellished and out of sequence near death experience story and Christianity at it's very heart is simply a near death experience religion. If you read the New Testament it has a very holographic flavor just like near death experiences do. Reaping what you sow, being judged the way you judge others, everyone getting paid the same thing, the prodigal son, are all very similar to the Life Review in NDEs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artaxerxes Posted April 11, 2012 #55 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) When Jesus prayed to God in the garden that his followers might experience the oneness and connectedness that he had experienced that is a parallel to what many NDE'ers say they felt. Jesus wanted his followers to experience the Love he felt on the other side on this side. Jesus vision for "the church" (his followers) was that they live their lives similar to what he had experienced in Heaven. The Church was supposed to be a respite from this world. A respite from the duality and separation that we experience in this life. A little piece of heaven on Earth. "on earth as it is in heaven." Christianity at it's very heart is a near death experience religion and the New Testament is simply a highly embellished and out of sequence near death experience story. Steven while he was being stoned had a death bed vision and Paul the apostle also experienced some kind of NDE-like experience. Edited April 11, 2012 by Artaxerxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted April 12, 2012 #56 Share Posted April 12, 2012 People can say there was no Jesus who was the Christian Christ, but it is very easy to believe that he was real. The 4 synoptic Gospels are generally agreed to have beeen written down in one form or another in the first century AD. So they would have easily been written by people that actually knew Jesus, or by those who were the direct (1st generation) students of the various Apostles. This is equivalent to someone today writting down what they learned from L Ron Hubbard about Scientology, or from one of Hubbards first followers. That is to say, very, very close to the source, and thus very easily believed to be from the source indicated (Jesus). Clearly by the end of the 1st century there were pockets of Christian "cultists" all over the near east, and the "rules" and documents were so well recorded that it seems to me that it would have been a gigantic effort to fake so much for so slow an effect. I think Josephus had the right of it. If Josephus wrote something about a General Nosepikinous taking over some outpost in Romania, it would be a lot less challenged then this record is. It is only the impact of the recording that makes people challenge it. If Jesus was real, and he really taught what is ascribed to him, then the Atheist position is very threatened by that. As now they are disbelieving in a real persons/teacher, and not a mythic figure such as Heracles or Abraham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alienated Being Posted April 12, 2012 #57 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) I believe that people named Jesus existed in that purported era, however, with regards to the biblical and Christian portrayal of Jesus; the evidence to support all of the mysticism surrounding him is heavily outweighed by the evidence (or lack thereof) that doesn't. In my opinion, I believe that it was some nutter who claimed to have magical properties, and was crucified as a result of it. Edited April 12, 2012 by Alienated Being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenfahr Posted April 13, 2012 #58 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I remember a few years ago I answered this question with this picture... looks like you got a picture of my uncle billy. whats the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talking Fairys Posted April 13, 2012 #59 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The problem with the question of if Jesus exists is that the true answer will never come out. Every time one side makes a valid point there are others that can point out the flaws in the theory. I've read the Bible and have always had trouble with the new testament since it completly conflicts with the old testament. While God was fire and death, Jesus was love and forgiveness. Jesus is a wonderful example of how we should treat each other but does that make him a real man? Even true die hard Christians have to admit that there are holes in the Bible that can cause the confusion especially in a world that has become so negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted April 13, 2012 #60 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The spread of christianity, the writings and establishment of churches, the roman repsonses to the christian movement (originally seen as a new jewish movement) All began within 10 years of jesus death, and gained momentum across quite a wide part of the known world within another decade or two. Well before the gospels were actually writen down, there was a large number of christians worshiping christ and following his teachings (which were either wriiten down in forms which have since been lost or were passed on orally at first) and a widespread network of christian churcghes for which records existed long afterwards. There was evn a meeting of church leaders to establish church leadership and possibly some doctrinal issues,about 30 years after christ's death. These things do not evolve from a non existent pereon within such a short space of time. They are a human response to a real preacher and teacher, located in the geographical area from which the teachings spread, and where the first churches were established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 13, 2012 #61 Share Posted April 13, 2012 looks like you got a picture of my uncle billy. whats the point? That's the best rendering of what Jesus must have looked like, that we've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted April 14, 2012 #62 Share Posted April 14, 2012 This mate is worth reading, folks! http://www.tonybushby.com/ I have only read THE BIBLE FRAUD, but it was really well done. I bought many copies for friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 14, 2012 #63 Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) This mate is worth reading, folks! http://www.tonybushby.com/ I have only read THE BIBLE FRAUD, but it was really well done. I bought many copies for friends. It is a misleading and false book... just as the bible fraud was. This gentleman falsifies his sources and actually uses, non-existent sources... that means only one thing, he is a man with a mission, even if he has to lie to succeed in it... Edited April 14, 2012 by Jor-el Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiole Posted April 18, 2012 #64 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Jesus, or the true name, Yeshua, actually did exist and was mentioned in the Hebrew bible. Yeshua in Hebrew is verbal derivative from "to rescue", "to deliver", not to "overcome the enemy" in literal terms, as Bart Ehrman and so many people make the mistake of thinking and to correct him, many of the Jew's also does not believe that Yeshua had already arrived they believe that he is still to come. Tal Ilan's lexicon of Second Temple period names on inscriptions in Palestine (2002) includes for "Joshua" 85 examples of Hebrew Yeshua, 15 of Yehoshua, and 48 examples of Iesous in Greek inscriptions," with only one Greek variant as Iesoua. One ossuary of the around twenty known with the name Yeshua, Rahmani No.9, discovered by Ezra Sukenik in 1931, has "Yeshu... Yeshua ben Yosef." The "Yeshu..." may have been scratched out. Two Jewish magical incantation bowls have been discovered both bearing variant spellings of Yeshua. Apart from the "Yesh.. Yeshua ben Yosef" ossuary, the only other known evidence for the existence of a Yeshu form prior to the material related to Jesus in the Talmud, is a graffito which Joachim Jeremias identified in Bethesda in 1966, but which is now filled in. Also the known spoken and understood language of the day was Greek and not Roman. The Pilot stone that was discovered also proved that Pontius Pilatus who was also thought to be a mystical figure was in fact not, but did exist not as a mystical figure, but as a very real person. SO SORRY GUYS TO MUCH EVEDENSE POINTS TO THE EXISTENCE OF YESHUA OR IF YOU PLEASE, JESUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roddy Posted April 18, 2012 #65 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Jesus, or the true name, Yeshua, actually did exist and was mentioned in the Hebrew bible. Yeshua in Hebrew is verbal derivative from "to rescue", "to deliver", not to "overcome the enemy" in literal terms, as Bart Ehrman and so many people make the mistake of thinking and to correct him, many of the Jew's also does not believe that Yeshua had already arrived they believe that he is still to come. Tal Ilan's lexicon of Second Temple period names on inscriptions in Palestine (2002) includes for "Joshua" 85 examples of Hebrew Yeshua, 15 of Yehoshua, and 48 examples of Iesous in Greek inscriptions," with only one Greek variant as Iesoua. One ossuary of the around twenty known with the name Yeshua, Rahmani No.9, discovered by Ezra Sukenik in 1931, has "Yeshu... Yeshua ben Yosef." The "Yeshu..." may have been scratched out. Two Jewish magical incantation bowls have been discovered both bearing variant spellings of Yeshua. Apart from the "Yesh.. Yeshua ben Yosef" ossuary, the only other known evidence for the existence of a Yeshu form prior to the material related to Jesus in the Talmud, is a graffito which Joachim Jeremias identified in Bethesda in 1966, but which is now filled in. Also the known spoken and understood language of the day was Greek and not Roman. The Pilot stone that was discovered also proved that Pontius Pilatus who was also thought to be a mystical figure was in fact not, but did exist not as a mystical figure, but as a very real person. SO SORRY GUYS TO MUCH EVEDENSE POINTS TO THE EXISTENCE OF YESHUA OR IF YOU PLEASE, JESUS. Actually, if you read Prof. Ehrman's book, you may be surprised at what his answer is to the title's question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 18, 2012 #66 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Actually, if you read Prof. Ehrman's book, you may be surprised at what his answer is to the title's question. That a man named Jesus did exist, but it could not possibly be the Jesus of the bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiole Posted April 19, 2012 #67 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) That a man named Jesus did exist, but it could not possibly be the Jesus of the bible? Thanks, you just took the question out off my mouth Edited April 19, 2012 by chiole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted April 19, 2012 #68 Share Posted April 19, 2012 That a man named Jesus did exist, but it could not possibly be the Jesus of the bible? Many men back then were named Jesus.. As for the bible version that is called son of God and miracle provider ect... We have no facts to back that, hence why it will always be just a belief... I will never get why so many believers cannot for the love of them acknowledge that it is a belief and not proven facts for all to observe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 19, 2012 #69 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Thanks, you just took the question out off my mouth And one that I do not agree with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 19, 2012 #70 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) Many men back then were named Jesus.. As for the bible version that is called son of God and miracle provider ect... We have no facts to back that, hence why it will always be just a belief... I will never get why so many believers cannot for the love of them acknowledge that it is a belief and not proven facts for all to observe Ok, I can do that, just as soon as everyone gets off their high horse and accepts the same treatment of every single other historical figure... Then we could drop History as a subject entirely in school (I know the students would appreciate that deeply) since most of what is learnt there would be classified as a belief... Like the Columbus issue we talked about... Edited April 19, 2012 by Jor-el Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roddy Posted April 19, 2012 #71 Share Posted April 19, 2012 That a man named Jesus did exist, but it could not possibly be the Jesus of the bible? Read his book and find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 19, 2012 #72 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Read his book and find out. I'll give you my opinion tomorrow, I just downloaded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roddy Posted April 19, 2012 #73 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I'll give you my opinion tomorrow, I just downloaded it. Looking forward to it. I'm only half way through the book myself. But based on his other books, I think I know what his answer will be. It just seemed that alot of people were jumping to conclusions, instead of taking the time to read the book first. Which is why I thought I should comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jor-el Posted April 19, 2012 #74 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) Looking forward to it. I'm only half way through the book myself. But based on his other books, I think I know what his answer will be. It just seemed that alot of people were jumping to conclusions, instead of taking the time to read the book first. Which is why I thought I should comment. I am aware of his background, I did a little research before commenting. But to adequately critique his stance I have to read the book 1st. I know he does not support the "Jesus Myth" stance, but he is one of the people who state that the Gospels do not portray Jesus with honsesty. That alot of the information is altered and added to to support a radically different view of the person we call Jesus. Thus my original question... That a man named Jesus did exist, but it could not possibly be the Jesus of the bible? Edited April 19, 2012 by Jor-el Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roddy Posted April 20, 2012 #75 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I am aware of his background, I did a little research before commenting. But to adequately critique his stance I have to read the book 1st. I know he does not support the "Jesus Myth" stance, but he is one of the people who state that the Gospels do not portray Jesus with honsesty. That alot of the information is altered and added to to support a radically different view of the person we call Jesus. Thus my original question... That a man named Jesus did exist, but it could not possibly be the Jesus of the bible? If you are aware of Prof. Ehrman's backstory, then you would already know that it would be impossible for a person who has lost his faith to write a book saying Jesus is the son of God. Just as it would be equally impossible for a believing Christian to write a book saying Jesus did not exist. Therefore you would already have the answer to your question. My original comment was for the person who had just posted, as they were assuming that the book would say Jesus never existed. I feel what is more interesting about this book is the look at the evidences of Jesus outside the Bible. That is why I am reading it. By the way, for anyone who is interested, There is a Formal Debate here on this site between Tiggs and Paranoid Android on this very subject. (If they would only finish it. Hint, Hint.) Link - Debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now